
BH33 

.US7 



SLAVERY IN THE K. /ITORIES 

/ 

/ 



DEBATE 



ON 



THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH OR PROHIBIT SLAVERY 
IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES ; 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 17, 1856. 



- - 






WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1856. 






v> 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 



Mr. STEPHENS. I ask the indulgence of 
House but for a few moments. I wish to 
make some inquiries of the honorable gentleman 
from Tennessee, [Mr. Zollicoffkr,] in n ference 
"to some remarks made by him in the debate yes- 
terday. He is reported as having said: 

'•' My opinion is, that I ntkraal 

power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in the 
territory of the United States — though iheyinay live in the 
South, though they may profess to be the advocates of the 
. South— are di ing to the South 
more damage', and are more dang n >us, than the Abolitioa- 
th North." 

I wish to ask th in from Tennessee 

what lie means by that declaration; and also it" 

i. 'ii, or any persons, at the 

South wh ■ I power of 

Congress to prohibit Blavi ry in the Territori 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Georgia has put the question to 

me, and 1 shall ! bilged to him, and to the 

House, not to ci strictly to a categori- 

cal answer. My conviction is. that the tin cry 
that the 'Congress of the United States has the 
constitutional pi - 1 line 

through thi where 

slavery shall exist, and where slavery shall be 
prohibited forever, is a theory giving to Con- 
a power whiijh the * □ has never 

this body. My opinion is, that 
this theory has done mot 

lutional rights of th n States of the 

Union than the open warfare of northern 
litionists upon the institutions of the South. I 
do not mean to be understood as sj 
gentlemen who entertain 1 i oi th Con- 

stitution are less patriot:'- tha i i who 

believe as 1 do, that the (' institution does nol 
confer that power; but my position is,' and 
what I wish to 

the theory is an is and most dang 

one. And here let me remark, that many gen- 



n of the South, whose patriotism I have 
never doubted, have fallen into a belief of this 
theory; and some gentlemen have gone so far as 
to demand that the Congress of tit - ates 

should mark out the line dividing the territory 

North and the South., and thi r 
determine forever where slavery should go, and 
where it should be prohibited. But I am grati- 
fied that many of those gentlemen have char 
t lie ir opinions. 

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] 
asks me to point him to a man of the South who 
entertains such opinions. I would say to him 
that my understanding is, that the gi ntleman 
from Georgia himself [Mr. Stephens] has, upon 
the floor of this House, maintained, with regard 

hat unless 
ress would extend i he Missouri compron 
line to the Pacific — would, by a geographical line, 
divide the territory, and determine forever wh< re 
slavi i ixist, and where it should be pro- 

had no other alternative than to 
return die l Tritory to Mexico. " Let us keep our 
mon iy which is to be paid for it," said he, "and 
let Mexico kee'p her provinces end her people." 
That was his position, as I understood it. I am 
gratified that the gentleman who then warr 1 
•• non-intervention" has 
I his opini n . 3tands before the 

of th pi inc o •• 
by the Fe i nt with 

the territories of the 'union, upon the subject of 
slavery. My opinion is, that the new Sts 
be carved out of the public Territorii s, When they 
shall be admitted into this Union, should come in 
upon an equal footing with the old States, under 
itution — that they 
should come in full-fledged, with all power for 
ding their fundamental eutional 

i 'd to the old States of the 
Union, [r peat, I do not mean to say that gen- 
tlemen who entertain the opinions 1 ascribe to 



him are less patriotic than those who embrace 
the principle of non-intervention; but I mean to 
say that such opinions are more dangerous to the 
South, particularly when presented by southern 
gentlemen, than when presented by open and 
avowed Abolitionists. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman is mistaken 
in attributing tome any such position or opinions 
as he seems, from the record he refers to, inclined 
to assign me. I did not then, or ever, advocate 
the constitutional power in Congress to prohibit 
slavery in the Territories; but I maintained that 
upon the principle of compromise I should be 
satisfied with nothing but a fair division of this 
Territory. I have always, and I do now, main- 
tain, as an original question, that the Territories 
of the United States are the common domain, in 
which the people of all the States have an equal 
interest; and that the people of the States who 
choose to settle them should determine their do- 
mestic institutions for themselves as they please 
when they come to form their State constitutions. 
But when the North would not permit the South 
to enjoy all in common, to colonize all in com- 
mon, and to settle all in common, without restric- 
tion, then only on the princijde of division, as an 
alternative, would I compromise the question at 
all. Now, sir 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER, (interrupting.) Will 
the gentleman from Georgia allow me to read his 
declared opinions ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Not now. I know all about 
my declared opinions. I do not wish to have my 
time now taken up by reading. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Very well, sir. 

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman has any- 
thing there in contradiction to what I say I will, 
when I get through, hear him read it; but I do 
not wish now to be diverted from other points. 
The gentleman stated to the House, when he be- 
gan, that those gentlemen who voted for the Mis- 
souri line — the geographical line — where slavery 
might exist, and where it should not, were more 
dangerous to the interests of the people of the 
South than the Abolitionists of the North. Does 
he believe that those men who in 18:20 — when the 
South was pressed to the wall — when they took 
that measure only as an alternative — when the 
North insisted on having every foot of the country, 
and when, only by a small majority, the South 
reluctantly took this line, in lieu of total prohibi- 
tion — does he believe, I ask, that those men were 
more dangerous to the South than the Abolition- 
ists of the North were ? Does he say that your 
Lowndeses and Clays, with a majority of the 
Southern members, were more dangerous to the 
rights and interests of the South and the peace of 
the country than the avowed Abolitionists? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Perhaps the gentleman 
does not understand me. I again repeat, and I 
wish to be properly understood, that this theory 
has done more damage and is more dangerous to 
the constitutional rights of the South than the open 
efforts of Abolitionists, Many patriotic men at 
the period to which the gentleman alludes, fell, as 
1 believe, into the errorin submitting to what they 
regarded as the smaller of two evils, namely: in 
admitting that the Federal Government has the 
pGwer ta bind tlic Slates which are yet to be formed 
aut of the Territories of the United States in the 
ofearacter of their dpmestic institutions forever. 



I feel that that theory is more dangerous to the 
South than the open warfare of the Abolitionists. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I wish the gentleman 
from Tennessee to state what theory he means? 
Does he know any southern man, in the begin- 
ning, in the middle, or down to the present, or at 
any time in the progress of this controversy, who 
ever entertained such a theory as he speaks of? 
And does he know of any southern man who ever 
voted for a division of the public domain, except 
as an alternative? Did the offer to divide even 
originate with southern men? Has it ever been 
defended by southern men, except as an alterna- 
tive ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. If the gentleman from 
Georgia will allow me, I will read an extract from 
his speech in 1850, on the subject? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Now, sir, you may read it. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. On the 13th of June, 
1850, the honorable gentleman from Georgia is 
reported, in the Globe, as saying: 

'• I have from the beginning been, as the gentleman from 
Mississippi says lie is, in favor of the extension of the Mis- 
souri compromise line, or some other fair and just division 
of the Territory. But i want no division which will not give 
as ample protectionjind security to the South in the enjoy- 
ment oilier portion, as it does to the North. The extension 
of the Missouri compromise, without the recognition of 
slavery south of that line and all necessary protection, 
would, in my opinion, be a perfect mockery of right, just 
as much so as the doctrine of non intervention.'' This was 
my position two years ago upon this flflor, and upon whieh 
f then declared 1 should stand or fall. I hold that, upon the 
acquisition of these Territories, their government devolved 
upon Congress, and that it was the duty of Congress to pass 
all necessary laws for the fair and equal enjoyment of them 
by all the people of the United States, or such of them as 
might go there with their property of every description. 

•• As a difference of opinion exists between the North 
and. South upon the subject of slavery, 1 thought, and slill 
think, that lov the purpose of such just and equal enjoy- 
ment a division of the Territory would be bust. That 
Congress had pou-cr to pass all such laws I never doubted — 
indeed [ was amazed at the position of those who claimed 
the constitutional right to carry and hold slaves there, and 
yet denied to Congress the power to pass laws for the pro- 
tection of these rights. 1'he doctrine of c non-interven- 
tion •" denied that power." 

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir; and I indorse 
every word of that now. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. STEPHENS. I ask the indulgence of 
the House to permit me to conclude my remarks. 

The CLEPlK. There being no objection the 
gentleman is at liberty to proceed. 

Mr. READE. Will the gentleman from Geor- 
gia allow me to ask him a single question, so that 
1 may be sure I understand him correctly? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly. 

Mr. READE. I want to ascertain whether I 
understood the gentleman from Georgia, in the 
extract just read by the gentleman from Tennes- 
see, to have spoken of the principle of non-inter- 
vention as a mockery? 1 want to understand that 
extract correctly. Did the gentleman from Geor- 
gia speak of the principle of non-intervention as 
a mockery? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That is what I under- 
stand his language to amount to. 

Mr. STEPHENS. One at a time — and one 
thing at a time, Mr. Clerk. What I wish the House 
right here to understand clearly is this: " Non- 
intervention," as the word was used at that time 
by m s,was a term altogether different in its mean- 
ing, and v irnport, and practical effect from the same 
word as it has more recently been used on this 



floor nnd elsewhere. At the time of the acquisi- 
tion of Mexican territory, there were local laws — 
as I understood them — prohibiting slavery. 1 
hold it to be the duty of Congress then to annul 
those laws, and to open up all the territory to the 
free and unrestricted colonization 6f th 
of all the States of the Union. There was the"n 
already "intervention" against us. Non-inter- 
vention over that territory at tha\* time would 
have been exclusion, particularly in cor 
with the idea thai the people there should never 
be permitted to change the existing status, as I 
showed in that speech from "which the gentleman 
has read an extractor some other, or at least 
thought 1 showed. This was my opinion upon a 

?[uestion, however, on which southern men dif- 
fered. But it is proper for the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. ReadeI and the House to 
understand the import with which the term " non- 
intervention'' was used by me in that speech. It 
was that " non-intervention" which, in my judg- 
ment, would have absolutely excluded a portion 
of the i" ople of the Union from a just and fair 

farticipation in the use of common territory , and 
wished al! to be equal participators therein. 
Now, sir, in that speech from which the gen- 
tleman has read, 1 was speaking of a settlement 
of this controverted question on the principle of 
division, as the people of the North could not 
hi justice I e permitted to take the whole terri- 
tory—every foot of it, North, South, East, and 
West, which they were claiming, and seermed 
determined to have. My theory was, and the 
whole southern theory was, as 1 understood it, 
as an original question, to leave the whole terri- 
tory free to colonization by all alike, and without 
restriction anywhere. But, sir, when we were 
forced to the wall, when we were outvoted by a 
large majority from the North, when we hi 
hopes of getting that theory of ours realized, then 
we were willing, as I said, in consequence of this 
sectional disagreement, as oh alternative, to have 
the territory divided with the san 
against the "previous intervention against us on 
one side of the line to the people of the Si 
as there was on tli i other side to the people of 
the North. 

The House will indulge me also in ano 
idea. In the speech to which the gentl 
from Tennessee has alluded, he quotes me as 
having expressed astonishment as to the ] 
of -Congress to do what 1 thought ought to be 
done: that is, to institute - ; 
Territories, and to effect what I desired, 
on this Subject, in both aspects of it. thi re was a 
division of sentiment as well North as South. 
I held that Congress had power to govern or to 
provide governments* and to pass such laws as 
were necessary to give security to slave pr 
which some, holding the di " non-inter- 

vention," as then used and understood, denied. 
I was aiiaazK d al some gentlemi n who hi Id 
by virtue of the Cot i al could 

hold slaves in the Territories, and yel denied 
the power to protect them. I hold thi 
timents now. I held that it is the duty of Con- 
gress to protefet stave property as well as other 

property in th immon territory of the I 

States, just as it might protect any other kind of 
property. That is what 1 held to" he the power 
and duty of Congress. I did not hold that it had 



the unqualified power to prohibit. Now I ask 
utleiaan again, does he know any man in 
the southern country who advocates, or even 
defends, the unlimited constitutional power of 
( !onj ress to prohibit slavery in the Territories? 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I Would ask the gen- 
ii from < leor-ia, whether in 1S!^ lie did not, 

hi i not position, with n P rence to 

,. [tory acquired from Mexico, thai there 

were hut tW I courses to pursue: lh;il lie re 

hut two alternatives with him. I ask him if he 
did not state, that unless the Federal Govem- 
• tt ndi 1 the Missouri compromise line to 
the Pacific ocean, so thai ilavery should exist 
forever on one side of the line, and should not 
exist on the other, his . : 1 1 1 y ; 1 1 1 e n ia l i ve was to 

p turn the territory to Mexico? I ask him if he 

did no! di mand thai Congress should not merely 

protect slavery in the territory on one side of a 

; phical line, hut should prbhibil it on the 

err ! asls him if he did not ,1, mand t : "it. and 

nd it as the only alternative to then turning 

the territory to MexuJo? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Only, Mr. Clerk, byway 
of compromise. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Ah! 
Mr. STEPHENS. It was only as a comprO- 
that I would agree to ordemanded thee: 
aion of the Missouri line, recognizing and protect- 
i, lav ry south ofthe line as Well as excluding 
itnorth. This was the only plan of division, 
i If an alternative, that I would agree to. I was 
ie e in favor of running that line through to the 
Pa ;ific— not as an original proposition, hut as an 
alternative— to settle the question upon some 
principles of justice, as the South and North dif- 
fered upon slavery, and the North, so far from 
letting the South have the IV >e common use of all, 
seemed lent up. .a not letting her have any. But 
the North would not agree, then, even to that- 
tiny would not divide. An overwhelming ma- 
jority in this Hou o iposed to it. On the 
"l."ih"day of January, 1S47, a lar-e, an u\. -whelm- 
ing majority in this House repudiated the adop- 
of that line by way of settlement— a line, or 
Inciple rather, which the South was forced to 
adopt in 1820, nol as a theory of her own, but as 
her only alternative. 

Now,Mr. < !lerk,l voted in 1848, as all the men 
from the So this floor voted, to extend 

tl il line to the Pacific coast. It was no measure 
of our choice. 

ZOLLICOFFER. I suppose I do not 
misunderstand tie- gentleman from Geo;-:. I 
now understand him to express the opinion that 
the Federal Government has no constitutional 
power to i- .ery in any of the Territo- 

ry s of -he United States; yet, in a spirit of com- 
promise, he was willing,in this instance, that 
ionstitution should be violated in the measure 
propo ie | to restrict slavery in half the territory, 
and that the Federal Government should thus do 
he < Ionstitution itself prohibited. 
Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir, I hold no such 
doctrine. The gentleman can assign me no such 

on. 1 voted to extend the line as an all 
ative; hut I did not hold, nor do I now hold, 
thai ! violated the Constitutiqn in thus voting. 
\.nd I want to know of the gentleman froi t Ten- 
nessee if he would not have voted for th- i 
sion of that line if he had been here? >V hen the 



6 



whole South united in agreeing to extend the 
line as an alternative, by way of compromise, in 
1848, I want to know oi' the gentleman from Ten- 
pujssei — and I call the attention of the House to 
his answer— whethiT he would not, if he had 
been here, have voted with the South for thai 
extension? Would the gentleman, or would he 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, it will be 
remembered that when this little sparring be- 
twiTii the gentleman from Georgia and myself 
commenced — — 

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not yield to the gentle- 
man, except to answer my question. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will give the gentle- 
man a direct answer. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well; go on. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I say it will be remem- 
bered that this little sparring between the gentle- 
man from Georgia and myself grew out of the 
fact, that when the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
[Mr. Fuller,] for whom I have been voting as 
a candidate for Speaker, defined his position the 
other day — when he announced himself as occu- 
pying the high national position which he did, the 
gentleman from Georgia rose and complimented 
him upon having revised his opinions and cor- 
rected his position before the House and country. 
I confess, sir, that I could not help supposing 
that those compliments were ironically tendered, 
and I stated, in reply, that it would be well to 
remember that other gentlemen had corrected 
their positions besides the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania. 

And now, sir, in reply to the interrogatory of the 
gentleman from Georgia, I have to say thai i'n i m the 
day of that crisis in 1850, when I saw what I saw 
in the Nashville Southern Convention, as it was 
called— when I saw that body demanding the ex- 
tension of the Missouri compromise line to the 
Pacific— when I saw that body advocating the 
exercise by the Federal Government of the power 
to prohibit and permit the extension of slavery 
upon the respective sides of a certain geograph- 
ical line through the Territories belonging to the 
Government, a power that I felt was not dele- 
gated by the Constitution — when I saw that posi- 
tion taken by the extreme men of the South, sir, 
I planted myself upon the position, that the peoplt 
of the Territories, when they come to form State 
governments for themselves, had the sole light to 
determine for themselves whether they would have 
slavery or not. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman has not 
answered my question. I ask again whether in 
1848, when the proposition was sent down from 
the Senate proposing to extend the Missouri line 
to the Pacific coasC would the gentleman from 
Tennessee have voted for it ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, Mr. Clerk, I will 

answer the gentleman in this way 

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannotgive the gentleman 
my time except for a direct answer to my ques- 
tion. I want to know whether, when Congress 
was providing governments for the Territories 
acquired from Mexico, he would, if he had been 
here, have, voted for the extension of the Mis- 
souri line through those Territories or not ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The time has been, Mr. 
Clerk, when the great body of men at the South, 
for the sake of choosing what they considered the 



smaller of two evils, had fallen in with this Mis- 
souri compromise line; but, sir, my own opinion 
is, that had I at that time occupied a seat upon this 
floor I should have felt it to be my duty to in- 
vestigate the subject with care, and to vote delib- 
erately upon that investigation; and that I should 
have voted to sustain the principles recognized in 
ike compromise measures o/1850. 

Mr. STEPHENS. My question is, would the 
gentleman have voted for the Missouri compro- 
mise line at the time I have stated? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My answer is, that I 
would have voted in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of the compromise acts of 1850, to leave the 
people of the Territories to determine the question of 
slavery for themselves, when they came to form a 
State government. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman said he 
would give me a direct answer. He has not. 
Now I wish to put to the gentleman from Ten- 
nessee another question, that is, whether when 
those southern men he has spoken of, before they 
got the principles of 1850, now carried out in the 
Kansas bill, chose the less instead of the greater 
evil, as he has said — when every man from Ten- 
nessee, every man from Georgia, every man from 
South Carolina — in a word, every man, Whig and 
Democrat, south of Mason and Dixon's line, 
voted for that measure, were they acting upon a 
theory more dangerous to the South than Aboli- 
tionism itself? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The principles of 1850 
and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill were then urged, 
and are as old as the Constitution. I repeat what 
I stated at the very outset, and I do not mean to 
be understood as saying that those gentlemen 
were less patriotic in their motives than those 
who understood, as the gentleman from Georgia 
now understands, the principle of non-interven- 
tion in the Nebraska and Kansas bill, or that 
their theory was more dangerous than Abolition- 
ism itself; but I say, nevertheless, that the theory, 
whoever may entertain it, that the power exists 
in the Federal Government to determine forever, 
for the States to be formed out of the Territori 3 
of the United States, the fundamental constitu- 
tional principles of those States— to determini 
whether slavery shall exist there or not — is a 
theory more dangerous to the South than the 
overt movements of Abolitionism itself. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I am here to defend that 
theory so far as my action under it is concerned. 
I say it was a wise theory, looking to the peace 
of the country under the circumstances. I say 
it was a just theory so far as it was founded on 
the principle of a fair division of the Territory, 
but it was not. nor is now, any favorite theory 
of mine. I preferred another — the principle es- 
tablished in 1850. Still, there was nothing so 
,e M ssi\e in it as that the country might not 
havi bi en satisfied with it if it had been abided by. 
1 acted on it only as an alternative. Nor do I 
hold that the whole South in adhering to it were 
more dangerous to themselves than Abolitionism 
itself. Nor, sir, do I hold that a division of ter- 
ritory, as stated, violates the Constitution of the 
United States. This 1 say, while I also main- 
tain that the Constitution gives to Congress no 
original or substantive power to prohibit slavery 
in the Territories of this country. The gentle- 
man cannot find, in any remarks that I have ever 



made, that I have advocated the exist, nee of any 
such power. I never have entertained any such 
opinion. I have always warred against it from 
the beginning. 

I have always maintained that this theory of 
tile Creation of Territorial governments was out- 
side the contemplation of the Constitution. It 
rests upon a pow.fr resulting from tin- acquisition 
of territory which tin- Constitution never contem- 
plated. But when acquired, the duty devolves 
upon Congress either to govern it or to provide 
n government for it. And in governing or pro- 
viding governments, Congress has no power, 
either express or implied, direct or incidental, to 
pass any law which would deprive any portion 
of the people of the several States of their right 
to a just and fair participation in the public do- 
main. I!ut a law or regulation, looking to a dis- 
position of the public domain as common prop- 
erty, based upon the principle of division between 
the two sections, disagreeing, as they do, upon 
the subject of slavery, I hold, may be constitu- 
tional, or, at least, not violative of it. While the 
exercise, therefore, of such power by a general 
exclusion would be wholly unconstitutional, yejt, 
under circumstances qualified as I have stated, it 
might be properly exercised. As I understood 
thehonorabl ■ at] .nan from Illinois [Mr. Rich- 
ardsox] to hold, the other day, the exercise of 
this power may or might be perfectly consistent 
with the Constitution, just, and proper in one 
instance, and wholly inconsistent with it, unjust, 
and improper in another. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, I desire to 
say, that if I have not done justice in every re- 
spect to the position taken by the gentleman from 
Georgia, on a former occasion, I desire now to 
do so. I sent, some fifteen minutes ago, to the 
Congressional Library for a copy of the Con- 
-ional Globe, containing the remarks of the 
gentleman from Georgia, to which I have re- 
ferred, upon which the statement I have made, 
as to his position, was predicated. I have not 
yet received it. I hope to receive it presently, 
and then I will give to the House the record upon 
which I iy opinion. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman misappre- 
hends me if he supposes thai 1 ever held the idea 
or opinion that Congress has the general or un- 
limited power to exclude slavery from the Terri- 
tories of the United States, Never, sir; but I 
have held, and I do hold now, thai the power in 
organizing governments and disposing of the 
common territory can be properly and constitu- 
tionally exercised on the principles of a fair 
division. The gentleman seems to belong to a 
class of men who argue that if Congress can ex- 
clude slavery from a part, on the principles I 
speak of, it could therefore exclude it from all 
the Territories. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That is the position 
of the gentleman's candidate forthe speakership, 
as announced hist Friday in his place, thai if you 
can exercise power over a part of the Territory, 
you can over th >■ Territory. 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. I indorse every 
word that the gentleman from Illinois has said 
on this subject. He says that he voted forthe 
extension of the Missouri comfjfeomise line, and 
that he did not think in doing so that he was 
violating the Constitution. I think so too. He 



says that the exercise of the power, other than 
by compromise, or a fair division of territory, 
would be wrong - and unjust, and violative, if not 
of the letter, at least of the spirit of the Constitution. 
So I say too. And why would it in my opinion 
he unconstitutional to 'exclude slavery from all 
the Territories? The Constitution is silent on the 
subject of the government of the Territories. I 
always maintained that the power was an 
incident and rasultulg one; and, as I look on all 
resulting powers, this one is to be fairly and 
justly exercised. When exercised in that way, 
1 hold that it is constitutional. If not, it is 
wrong and unjust, and tantamount to a violation 
of an express provision of the Constitution. It 
is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, 
because of its injustice. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. If Congress has the 
power to exclude slavery from one half of the 
Territory, has it not the power to exclude from 
all the Territory? 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. That is the 
point. It would be unjust; and for that very rea- 
son no such power of general exclusion could be 
prop, riv exercised. The Government of the 
United States, under the operation of the revenue 
laws, and not within the purview or contempla- 
tion of any of the granted powers of the Govern- 
ment, acquired a surplus revenue. It was never 
contemplated by the Constitution that such a 
fund should be amassed. A distribution of tht 
fund fairly and justly between all the States, I 
hold, was perfectly constitutional. But suppose 
the North had said, "Here is a case outside of 
the Constitution. There is not a word in that 
instrument on the subject. The fund has been 
unexpectedly acquired under the operation of the 
Government; but it shall not be divided among 
all the States equally; it shall be taken exclusively 
by those where slavery does not exist; that no 
slaveholding State shall touch a dollar of it." 
Would that have been constitutional? 

This is an apt case in point of illustration, for 
the Constitution is silent on the subject. It was 
never contemplated by that instrument that a 
surplus fund should be accumulated; but such a 
fund did accumulate and mayagain. The power 
of distribution was a resulting power, and, when 
fairly and justly exercised, was constitutional. I 
do not now discuss the expediency Of the distri- 
bution, but the constitutionality of it. I do not 
doubl thai tl was constitutional if the distribution 
was fair ami just, but it would have been nothing 
short of usurpation for the North to have taken 
the whole of it. That is my answer, and so with 
the Territories'. Here was an acquisition ofpublic 
domain, which the Constitution never looked to 
or provided for, mule by the common treasure, by 
ih. common blood of northern men and southern 
m.n— men from all sections contributed in acquir- 
ing it. In some States slavery exist d, in others 
it did not; and was it not right that the people of 
tdl the States should have an equal enjoyment of, 
or a just and fair participation in, this public 
domain? Just as in the case of the surplus fund; 
when that fund came to be divided, it would have 
h> en monstrous, and unjust, and violative of the 
Constitution— of its spirit, if not of its letter— if 
the distribution had not been an equal and a fail- 



one. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. 



I have at length been 



8 



able to obtain, and will read the extract on which 
I based my opinion of the gentleman's position. 
My object in doing so, at this time, is merely to 
show that I had no purpose to misunderstand or 
misrepresent him. I call attention to the following 
extract of a speech delivered by the gentleman in 
1848, on the floor of this House. 

"I have no objection to compromising the question, but I 
have only two plans of compromise ; one is, nfair division 
of the territory by fair and distinct lines, by which every 
one may know exactly to what extent his rights will be 
protected. I care not much whether it be by an extension 
of the .Missouri line, or whether it be by adopting as a line 
one of the mountain ranges, giving the South all on this side 
and the North all on the other. I am, however, rather in 
favor of the latter; but shall insist on some fair and just 
division. That is one plan of compromise I shall favor ; and 
if I cannot get that, lf,have but one other to offer, and that 
is, to reject the Territory altogether. Let us keep our money 
which Is to be paid for it, andlet Mexico keep her provinces 
and her people." 

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Let me proceed. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Show in what I differed 
then from what I now state. "Why do you bring 
my records to back what I now say ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I do not say that it 
differs from what the gentleman has said in the 
last few minutes; but there does seem to me to 
be some difference between it and the non-inter- 
vention banner which he so boldly flaunted on 
yesterday. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Not at all, sir. Permit 
me to repeat just here that my original view was, j 
that Congress should not interfere or intervene j 
against us; that Congress should leave the com- 
mon territory free and open to colonization by | 
all alike. This was what I desired; this is what 
■we have now got. But when that speech was | 
made, this hope was a foregone conclusion; the ; 
hand of Congress against us could not be stayed. 
None of us expected, if the [territory should be 
acquired, that intervention againstus by Congress 
in some way or other could be prevented. We 
were voted down. I, however, was still willing, 
as an alternative, to compromise on the old prin- 
ciple of division; but if I could not get even that, 
then my last alternative was not to take the ter- 
ritory. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rich- 
ardson] and the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. 
Douglas,] and a few more, not exceeding half a 
dozen, I believe, were the only gentlemen from the 
entire North who voted to give us any showing 
at all — men who seem to be now hunted down. 
While the gentleman is reading me a lecture in 
reference to the honorable gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania, to which I will reply, his whole argu- 
ment seems to be to hunt down Mr. Richard- 
son. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I think that assump- 
tion is a little unkind to me. I feel that such is 
not my wish; but that, when southern men seem 
to be hunting down sound and national men of 
the North, who stand with me, both sides of the 
question should go before the people. 
Mr. STEPHENS Let me go on, if you please. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will say that 1 now 
understand the gentleman's position to be some- 
what different from what I supposed. I under- 
stand that, as a matter of compromise, he was 
willing to see this geographical line run to the 
Pacific; that slavery should exist on one side, and 
be excluded from the other. I now understand 



him to say that he believes that Congress has 
power to make this disposition. 
Mr. STEPHENS. I do. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. And I understand him 
at the same time to say that, while Congress has 
power to prohibit slavery from one half of the 
territory, it has not the power to prohibit it from 
three quarters. This, I must confess, to me is 
inexplicable. 

Mr. STEPHENS. It may be so to the gen- 
tleman; it does not seem so to me. I say that 
there is no violation of constitutional power to 
divide fairly and justly, but it would be violative 
of every just principle of the Constitution to take 
the whole. If that is inexplicable to the gentle- 
man, I suppose it will not so appear to others. 
I suppose that this was the view of all the gen- 
tlemen from the South acting with me' on the ex- 
tension of the Missouri line; at least, it is the 
ground upon which I stood. 

Now, Mr. Clerk, I am willing that the gentle- 
man shall search all my records, and bring them 
up here and read them. I think that, upon this 
point, the gentleman will find that I have never 
changed sides, or positions, or opinions. If I 
were to do it, I would not hesitate to avow it; I 
wish the gentleman to know that. But I wish 
the country also to know that my opinions upon 
this point, so far as I am a proper judge of them, 
have been the same since I first came to Con- 
gress, and just such as I entertained before I 
came here. The position of the South from the 
beginning was, that Congress ought not to inter- 
fere or intervene against us upon this subject. 
That is my position, and always was, as an 
original question. That was the southern ground 
anterior to the Missouri restriction in 1820. That 
was only supported by southern men as an alter- 
native. It was when the South was voted down 
by the North, and when the South was about to 
lose the whole of the territory, that she con- 
sented to the principle of a division; and I say 
that Congress has the power, in my opinion, to 
divide fairly and justly, but no power to give the 
whole, exclusively, to one section, just as in the 
ase I have put about the surplus revenue. 

Now, sir, the gentleman remarked that my allu- 
| sion to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
| Fuller] was unkind. I disclaimed yesterday — 
I disclaimed most emphatically yesterday — and I 
do again to-day, any intention of alluding to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania in an unkind spirit. 
I did it because I thought the occasion required 
it; I thought it due to the progress of our cause 
here. I felt extremely gratified at the announce- 
ment of the gentleman's opinions, and so I said 
then. I say now that my intention was not to 
cut down the gentleman from Pennsylvania at all, 
but it was to strengthen him and to strengthen 
his friends and our cause at the North— it was to 
give our friends every assurance and induce them 
to stand firm; for we have evidence now that if 
they do so, the great principles established in 
1850, and carried out in the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, will ultimately prevail in this country, not- 
withstanding the clamor at the first elections 
against it. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I am happy to hear that 
I misapprehended the purpose of the gentleman: 
but when he, by implication, stated that the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania had seen new light 



9 



Mr. STEPHENS. I did not say that he had 
scon new light. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, that light had 
dawned upon him. 
Mr. STEPHENS. I did not say that. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The impression upon 
my mind was that the gentleman did imply this 
in what he said. 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. What I said 

was 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well.Mr. Clerk, may 
I be allowed to ask the gentleman, in order that 
I may be able to understand tjis position — for I 
have some difficulty in understanding him — 
whether he believes the Missouri compromise 
line to have been constitutional or unconstitu- 
tional ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe that it was con- 
stitutional. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, that is what I 
understood his position to amount to at first. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe it -was founded 
upon the principle of a fair division of the terri- 
tory as it was then understood, and as such it 
violated no constitutional provision. I ask the 
gentleman from Tennessee now again, whether 
he would not have voted for it if he had been 
here ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, 1 can only 
repeat what I attempted to say in reply to the 
same question a few minutes ago. Had I been 
a member of the House at that time, my opinion 
is, that I would have done what it has been my 
uniform habit to do — that I would have investi- 
gated every question upon which I was called to 
vote upon its constitutional principles; and my 
opinion is, that upon an investigation such as I 
ga i e to this question in 1850 and in 1654, 1 should 
have come to the conclusion that there was noth- ! 
ing in the Constitution authorizing the Federal j 
Government to exercise the power of prohibiting | 
the new States to be formed out of the territory j 
of the Union from adopting such permanent in- j 
stitutions as they chose to adopt when they came 
in as States. I should, therefore, have held that 
the Missouri compromise was in derogation of j 
the Constitution; that is, that there was nothing 
in the Constitution authorizing such an act; and 
that inasmuch as the power is claimed upon that 
clause of the Constitution which authorizes Con- 
gress to make "all needful rule's and regula- 
tions" for the territory and other property of the 
Union, and inasmuch as a regulation permanently 
prohibiting the States to be formed out of that ter- 
ritory from acting for themselves when they 
took on themselves sovereignty, was not a " need- ' 
ful rule" that Congress had no such power. That 
is my present opinion. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentfeman, then, was 
opposed to it, and would not have voti <1 for it. 1 
understand him to say that he would not have 
voted for the Missouri compromise. 

Air. ZOLLICOFFER. For the third time, I 
will endeavor to make myself definitely under- 
stood . 

Mr. STEPHENS. I have asked the question 
whether the gi nileirian would have voted for the 
extension of I he Missouri compromise. The gen- 
tleman has been several times upon the lloor, and 
has not answered that question. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My opinion is, that, 



had I been a member of that Congress, I would 
have investigated the question, and that, having 
investigated it, 1 would have come to the conclu- 
sion ih,',! the Missouri compromise was not au- 
thorized by the Constitution; and I would, of 
course, have voted against it, and sustained the 
principle incorporatedin the compromise bills of 1350. 
Thai is what 1 mean to say, and have, in sub- 
stance, several times repeated. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I understand the 
gentleman to say that, in 1848, he would have 
voted against the whole South, upon the principle 
thai all the southern members of the Senate and 
of this body were more dangerous to the South 
than the Abolitionists themselves ! After inves- 
tigating and groping about and looking in the dark 
for a light, he would have come to the conclusion 
that Congress had no such power, and would hayi 
voted for the principles established in 1850. Sir, 
the principles established in 1850 were the prin- 
ciples of the South from the beginning. But 
when we were looking to an extension of the Mis- 
souri line, we had no hope of getting the princi- 
ples of 1850. This Missouri line of division was 
sustained by the South only as an alternative all 
the lime. The South took It in the beginning re- 
luctantly. But the gentleman attributes to m< , 
and those who thus sustained it, the doctrine 
that Congress has the general original power to 
exclude slavery from the Territories. Now-, I 
have said, and repeat, I hold no such doctrine. 
On the contrary, I have said to this House and 
to the country everywhere, that if Congress were 
to exercise such power, I should be for resting 
it. While I was willing to divide fairly in 18 . . 
and while that was the only compromise I was 
for, and while I stood upon the same principle in 
1850, I proclaimed to the country that if we did 
not get a fair division, if the North took the whole 
territory, I was for resistance. Now, I want to 
know where the gentleman is going to stand in 
such a contingency? He thinks, as I do, that 
such an exercise of power would be unconstitu- 
tional. Suppose a majority of this House should 
restore the Missouri restriction, and suppose it 
should pass the Senate, and receive the Execvtive 
approval, what are you going to do? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The explanation which 
the gentleman has amplified to-day is the same 
which he made yesterday, and I am very willing 
that he should extend the explanation. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The floor is mine, and I 
cannot yield it to the gentleman, unless he un- 
dertakes to answer my question. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. 1 certainly will. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Suppose, I say, that the 
restoration of the Missouri restriction is estab- 
lished, what is the gentleman going to do? Sup- 
pose Congress docs exercise the power to exclude 
slavery from the- Territories — which the gentle- 
man thinks is a violation of the Constitution — 
what is he going to do? What m< asure will he 
recommend to the people of the South! What 
theory of government is he going to act upon? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I hold that my friend 
from Georgia has not the right to make up sup- 
d cases,_and put a catechism tome upon any 
wild imaginary hypothesis. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman himself 
first commenced the system of catechising on 
supposed cases. He offered the resolution de- 



10 



daring that the opinions of candidates should be 
known, and followed it up by a long string of 
(Questions. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Will the gentleman; 
permit me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, a hundred of 
them; and I want you to answer mine. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. In what clause of the 
Constitution do you find the power authorizing 
Congress to make a fair division of the Territories ? ■ 

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not find it at all. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. You have a higher 
law. then, than the Constitution? 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir; I do not recog- 
nize any higher law than the Constitution. I 
have said before, that the government of the Ter- 
ritories was outside of the Constitution, spring- 
ing from a resulting power incident to the acqui- ] 
sition, and that a fair division was not violative 
of it. That is what I said. Now answer my j 
question, and I will answer you a dozen more, if 
you put them to me. My question is, what will 
you recommend your people to do, provided the 
restriction is restored, or Congress does exercise 
the power of excluding the people of the south- 
ern States from an equal participation in the Ter- 1 
ritories ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will do that which a 
southern man, loyal and true to the Constitution, 
should do when that question arises. I do not 
recognize the right of the gentleman from Georgia 
to interrogate me upon supposed cases which 
may never arise. Upon my record I will answer, 
and I hold him to his. When the time shall 
come. I shall be prepared to act as a southern 
and a national man, regarding the rights of every 
section of this Union. Upon the gentleman's 
own record I have interrogated him; but I have 
put no question to him as to what he would do 
in a supposed state of things which may never 
happen. When the crisis comes upon the coun- 
try, I shall be prepared to take that course which 
a patriotic man, living in the South, and devoted 
to the principles of the Constitution, should take. 

Mr. STEPHENS. As the gentleman has an- 
nounced to the country who are the best friends 
and who are the worst enemies of the country, 
and that certain men of the South in the Senate 
and in the House, though patriotic in their 
motives., are worse enemies of tie South than 
even the Abolitionists, I think it is but right that 
the South should be enlightened as to what his 
position would be, if the event I have supposed 
should happen. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do I understand the 
gentleman to maintain that the South assumes 
the power, and has used it in prohibiting slavery 
from the Territories? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Southern Senators, and 
members of the House from the South, upon this 
floor, did vote for a division upon the line of 3G° 
30', and they did unanimously vote to extend it 
to the Pacific ocean. They did it reluctantly, as 
an alternative for S0me show of justice, but I 
it for granted that feveryone of them did what he 
thought was right, under the circumstan<*s, as 
tin' lesser of two evils; and that none of them 
thought they were violating the Constitution of 
the United States. But the gentleman says that 
those who thus voted were the worst enemies of 
the South. 



Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I have stated to the 
House, and I have repeated it again and again, 
that I did not say that those gentlemen who con- 
ceded the constitutional power of Congress to 
prohibit slavery, were less patriotic than those 
who construe the Constitution as I do. I did not 
say they were worse enemies of the South. I 
did say, that in my opinion the theory, that the 
Federal Government has the right to act for the 
States to be formed out of the Territories of the 
Union, in forming their permanent domestic insti- 
tutions, is a theory most dangerous to the South, 
and the more dangerous when entertained by 
gentlemen living; in the South. 

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman will not 
answer my question. Be it so. The South can 
judge best who acts upon a theory most danger- 
ous to her interests. My position was, and is 
this: I was willing to divide as an alternative 
only, but a majority of the North would not 
consent to it; and now we have got the great 
principle, established in 1850, carried out in 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that Congress, after 
removing all obstructions, is not to intervene 
against us. This is the old southern republican 
principle, obtained after a hard and protracted 
struggle in 1850; and I say, if Congress ever 
again exercises the power to exclude the South 
from an equal participation in the common Ter- 
ritories, I, as a southern man, am for resisting it. 
The gentleman from Tennessee does not say 
what he would do in that contingency. 

The gentleman upon my left wishes to ask me 
a question. 

Mr. HOWARD. I understand the gentleman 
to say that he was in favor of an equal division 
because it was just and fair. He says, the Ter- 
ritories, being outside of the Constitution, the 
giving the whole of them to one part, would be 
unconstitutional, because unfair. 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir, I did not say 
" the giving to the one or the other," but " the 
giving exclusively to one." 

Mr. HOWARD. Was it constitutional to 
take from either one of those parties the share 
they got upon a just division ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir; and that was not 
done: the North herself would not abide by the 
division contemplated. The idea on which the 
line was first established in 1820 was, that Mis- 
souri should come into the Union as a slave State, 
and that slavery should be excluded from all of 
the Louisiana purchase north of 3G° 30', with a 
toleration of it south of that line, if the people 
chose. But at the next session of Congress, in 
1821, the North voted Missouri out. She was 
denied admission on the terms of the act of 1820. 
The whole South was for it, and the almost 
entire North against it. The North would not 
stand by the compromise intended to give her an 
exclusive part. The Missouri lie . lated 

di\ ision, therefore, has virtually been a dead letter 
from that day to this; the North, or a majority 
of her representatives in Congress, repudiated it 
themselves: the South never did; they stood by 
it in 1821. And in order to s whether the North 
looked upon it, and considered it as a living prin- 
cipli !, and not a repudiated offer to compromise 
upon the principle of division, the South proposed 
in 1847 and in 1848, as an alternative in lieu of 
the " Wilmot proviso" on the Oregon bill, to 



11 



abide in good faith by it. But this proposition, 
voted for by every southern Senator and Ri p- 
resentative upon this floor, was voted down, 
and ■' in, by an overwhelming majority 
from the North. They thus repudiated ii over 
the very territory which we acquired with Lou- 
isiana: die same repudiation was again and again 
curried in this House in 1850, when the South 
was unanimously for standing in good faith bj I ! .<' 
principle. Therefore the South never even gol 
the admission of Missouri by their agre< ing to 
take as an alternative a division on that line, and 
we were thrown back, in 1850, upon our original 
principles, which were, thai there should be no 
congressional restrictions al all;but thai the peo- 

Elesi ttling the Territorii s from all -sections of the 
Tnion should regulate this matter of slavery for 
themselves. That is the principle, as 1 under- 
stood, that the South stood upon in 1820, before tin- 
Missouri restriction was moved. It was the old 
republican principle; it was the principle that the 
Congress of the United States could not, on gen- 
eral principles, justify and righdy legislate for a 
people who are ran their constituents; and 1 say to 
those gentli men who call themselves Republicans 
upon this floor, than, in asuraing that misapplied 
title, they do violence to every principle conse- 
crated by the nana- they espouse. 

The old republican idea of a representative 
Government, acted on in the beginning, was a 
very dinerent thing tVom what you proclaim at 
this time. At the time of the formation of our 
Constitution, every State in the Union but one 
was a slave Stair: and were they not all repub- 
lican States? The Constitution says,new States 
may Ue admitted; and the only tiling you have 
to look a;, upon the application of any for ad- 
mission, is to see that us constitution is repub- 
lican in its character, and you, genth men, who 
call yourselves Republicans now, say that if the 
Cons itution tolerates slavery it is n itr publican, 
and, then fore, your fathers, your n publican 
fathers, with slavery existing in every State but 
one, did not know the meaning of republican- 
ism; 

According to ypur interpretation of the term 
they acted upon an idea that would have excluded 
everyone of the Old Thirteen from the Union but. 
one — Massachusetts alone could have been a 
L'n'u.n by herself upon your principles. Is it 
supposed that the other twelve would have dis- 
puted over the character of a. Sta e con Lution, 
to be admitted into tin Union, because it was not 
republican, if it only embi I tl ame princir 
pi 3 of republicani m as fcheirown? 1 state to 
thesi thi mselves " R 

lican," tha tin every principle conse- 

ted by the name they bear, not only in this 
view, but they do so again when they undertake 
to set up that i' of what is 

right in the Territories, and bi tti r s for 

ile of Kansas and Nebraska than the 
those Territories are for th< 
Tin y . . ■, ■ ' . Ives up as the 

masters and judges of the proper institutions of 
the peooi,. of Kansas. The people of Alas iachu- 

othi r northern Stat 
not content with attending to their own business, 
set ! uperior to the pei i] ; 

Kansas and Nebraska, and pretend that they can 
know their interests and determine them ! 



than they can themselves. Sir, I utterly deny 
the republicanism of their pretensions; 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting) made an in- 
quiry of Mr. Stephensj which the reporter did 
not distinctly hear. 

Mr. STEPHENS. ! am going to bring my 
remarks to a close: and 1 would ask the Repub- 
licans in this lions', and particularly the gentle- 
man from Ohio, who objects to my proceeding, 
to listen. 1 read, sir, what Mr. John (iuiney 
Adams, who. 1 believe, was as violent an anti- 
slavery man in his sentiments as any man, said 
to the Abolitionists at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 
in November, 1843: 

•• Vs to the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia, I have said thai I was opposed to it — not because I have 
any doubts of the power of Congress to abolish slaverj in 
the District, for I have none. Bui I regard it as a violation 
" ;,'. pies to enact laws at the petition of one 

u Inch are to opei 
consent. As the laws now -stand the people of 'the 
District have property jn th 

Just upon the principle of its being anti-repub- 
lican Mr. Adams would not legislate for the people 
of this Dis inst their consent. He did 

not question the power. 

Air. STANTON, (interrupting.) I must make 
a question of order. I do not think it advisable, 
in a di--< ussion of this kind, that a speech of this 
sort, should go out to the country Without there 
being an opp< rtunity first to have it replii d to. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I shall not trespass on 
the time of the House more than a lew minutes 
longer. 

The CLERK. The Clerk would state that the 
House by unanimous consent permitted the gen- 
•ed. 

Mr. CAAIPDELL, of Ohio. I ask my col- 
lea roe [Air. Stanton] to withdraw his objection 
and allow the gentleman from Georgia to proceed 
with bis remarks, it' we are to have a debating 
society here, 1 will seek an opportunity to r 
to tiie .; atlem n, and therefore 1 desire that he 
shall be fully la-ard. 

Air. STANTON withdrew his objections. 

Air. STEPHENS. It is not my in* tionj 
Mr. Clerk, to trespass on the indulgence oi' this 
House', nor shall 1 do it. 1 have bet n brought 
into tiie discussion much further than 1 had any 
idea of when 1 rose, lint there is one remark 
which I wish to make before concluding what I 
wished to say; and that is in n gard to the doc- 
trine of squall. ■ :y, of which several 
gentl men have spokt a. i think tiie gentleman 
inia [Air. Oarlile] spoke this morn- 
ing — if 1 and rstood him aright — of the principle 
n ignty ( mbraced in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. Now, these terms of ''squatter 
sovereignty'' and " non-intervention" are words 
w hi. ! : I s'stood by (iiil'er- 
iily by the same gen- 
; have staled. 1 wish 
to say that, as I under tand"squ ceigri- 
ty" now. and as I have always understood it, 
is not a particle of it in the Kansas bill. 
What I understand by V squatter sovereignty'.' 
is the Ink; rent and sevt n i;.:n i ighl of the pi ople of 
the Territory si ttling on the common domain to 
bliah and set up governments for themselves* 
without looking to Congress, and independently 
of ( tmgi 

Now, sir, that idea was embraced by some 



12 



gentlemen in 1848 and 1850, as part of their doc- 
trine of " non-intervention" by Congress; and 
with this view I call the attention of the gentle- 
man from Tennessee, [Mr. ZoixicoFFER,] who | 
has read from my speech in 1850, when I used 
the term "non-intervention." Many persons 
embraced that with the other views in connec- 
tion with that term which I have referred to. 
Against that doctrine, with that understanding 
of it, I always stood opposed, and am opposed j 
now. There is not a-single feature, not a par- 
ticle of "squatter sovereignty" in the Kansas; 
bill, on that idea. Why, sir, their whole organic , 
law emanates from Congress Their Legisla- ! 
ture, their judiciary, every department and the 
whole machinery of their government proceeded 
from Congress; the inherent sovereign right of the 
people to establish a government uidependently 
of Congress is not recognized in a single clause 
of that bill. If gentlemen mean by squatter sov- 
ereignty this principle, I say to them that there 1 
is not a particle of it in that bill; and I am as 
much against it as anybody. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Will the gentleman 
from Georgia allow me to ask him a question ? 
Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I would be pleased to 
know whether the gentleman from Georgia in- 
terprets the Kansas-Nebraska bill to give to the 
people, to the legislative body, of the Territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska the power to abolish 
slavery during the existence of the territorial | 
government ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I answer the gentleman. 
I think that the Kansas-Nebraska bill gives to the 
people of the Territory, grants to them all the 
power that Congress had over it, and no more. \ 
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do you believe that 
Congri ss had no power to abolish slavery in that 
Territory during its territorial existence? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I think it would be unjust 
and a great wrong for Congress to exercise any 
such power. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do you think it would 
be unconstitutional? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I think there is no power 
in the Constitution to do it, and it would be wrong 
from any resulting power, denying as it would 
an ecpual and just enjoyment of the public do- 
main by all the people — and unjust, and tanta- 
mount "to usurpation to do it. Sir, I was going 
to say that the gentleman holds that Congress 

has no such power 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. (interrupting,) Do you 
believe that Congress had the power at all? 

Mr. STEPHENS. Hear me through. What 
I was going to say is, that all the power which 
Congress possessed over the Territories on this 
subject is, in this bill, given to the people. And 
the gentleman holds that Congress could not 
prohibit slavery. If so, the people then cannot. 
Now, what I 'hold is, that the Constitution is 
silent upon the subject. But any such act by 
Congress in the case supposed would be an act.. 
in my opinion, of gross injustice, and would be 
tantamount to an open violation of any of the 
express provisions of the Constitution. All the 
power, however, which Congress had over the 
subject is granted to the people, and they have 
got none else. I say this, and that 1 voted for 
the bill with this understanding of its import, 



and a determination that whatever the people of 
that Territory should do on the subject of slavery, 

whether their Legislatures should pass laws to 
protect it or to exclude it, or simply leave it 
without protection, I should for myself abide by 
their acts. I was for taking oft' an odious dis- 
crimination and an unjust restriction by Congress 
against the South, and leaving the question for 
those to determine who, going from all sections 
alike, were most deeply interested in it, according 
to the principles of the territorial bills of 1850. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I do not wish to mis- 
understand the gentleman from Georgia: and I 
therefore ask him whether I am to understand 
him as saying that it would be wrong and unjust 
for Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territory; 
yet that it has the constitutional power to do so, 
and that Congress conferred that power upon the 
Territory ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir; the gentleman, it 
seems, wishes to make me say what I did not say. 
I never said that Congress had the power to pro- 
hibit slavery in the Territories. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The gentleman from 
Georgia misapprehends me, if he supposes that 
I intend to represent him as saying what I did not 
understand him to say. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well, then; do not 
make me say what I have not said. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It seems, then, that I 
misapprehended the gentleman; but that cer- 
tainly was my understanding of the purport of 
his answer to'the question which I put to him. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, then, the gentleman 
was not attending to what I did say, because the 
whole tenor of my remarks shows that, In my 
opinion, there is no direct, or distinct, or original 
power conferred on Congress by the Constitution 
to exclude slavery from any of the Territories, 
or any portion of them; but on the acquisition 
of territory, not contemplated by the Constitu- 
tion, a fair division of the country migltt be made 
as 1 have stated, between the parties interested, 
, by way of compromise. I mean to say, I do 
not think such division violates the Constitu- 
tion; but in no other sense do I hold that Con- 
gress could constitutionally agree to the exclu- 
sion of slavery from any of the common territory, 
or any part of it. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That I may not mis- 
apprehend the gentleman from Georgia, as it 
seems I have done, for I find it difficult to under- 
stand him, I must ask him another question. I 
understand him to say that in the spirit of com- 
promise Congress has the power to abolish slavery 
in a part of the territory— say in one half of the 
territory. Now if Congress has the power to 
abolish slavery in half the territory, has it not 
also the power to abolish it in the whole? 

Mr. STEPHENS, /have not used the word 
"al blish " in this connection to-day; but I say no 
to his question. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, " prohibit!" 
Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, I have used that 
Word, and exclude, and restrict. I now say dis- 
tinctly that it dues not follow, in my opinion, that 
becaus i Congress could constitutionally provide 
for the exclusion of slavery over part of the 
territory on the principle of division 1 have been 
speaking of, that therefore the unlimited power 
exists to exclude it from the whole. I deny, in 



13 



toto, the existence of such unlimited or unqual- 
ified power in Congress on the subject. 

Mr. TODD. Will the gentleman from Georgia 
allow me to ask him a question! 

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine, also made the 
same request at the same time. 

Mr. STEPHENS. I will allow both gentle- 
men to put as many questions to me as they 
tdease. 1 will first hear the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Todd.] 

Mr. TODD. I understand the gentleman from 
Georgia to assume the position, that the power 
docs not exist in the Constitution to determine 
what shall be the institutions of the Territories 
belonging to the United States. Now I desire to 
ask the gentleman wherein thai power resides? 
Does it reside in the people of the Territories, or 
does it reside in Congress? [f it does not exist 
in the Constitution, from whence dues the gen- 
tleman derive it? 

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not think it exists 
anywhere, while the territorial condition lasts, 
neithi r in the people of the Territory nor in 
Congress. The public domain, while it remains 
a Territory of the United Slates, is the common 
property of the people of the several States, to 
be disposed of by.Congress, under the limitations 
of the Constitution, for the just and equal enjoy- 
ment or use of the- people of all the States; and 
there is no general or unlimited power existing 
anyu here, either in Congress or the people of the 
Territory, or anybody else, to deprive any citi- 
zen of the United States from going there with 
his property, of whatever kind it may consist, 
so long as it is a Territory. 1 have as much 
right to go there with my property as the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania has with his; and 
the people of Georgia have as much right to go 
there with their property as the people of Penn- 
sylvania have' with theirs. The unlimited power 
to exclude slavery, and that is the idea I suppose 
the gentleman is upon, exists nowhere in my 
opinion. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to be 
hunting for the power, and because he cannot find 
it in one place, he takes it for granted that it must 
exist in another. His logic is about as good as 
that of the man who undertook to prove that Co- 
lumbus was not the discoverer of America; that 
this honor was due to some Norwegian naviga- 
tors, who it was claimed discovered it i believe 
about the year 9UU, at any rate, several centuries 
before Columbus. The reasoning by which this 
conclusion was arrived at was, that a Norwegian 
vessel, about that time, set out from the coast of 
Norway, sailing west, which was never heard of 
afterwards; and the argument was, that those on 
this vt ssel must have -one to America, for if 
they did not where else did they go to? [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Air. TODD. Do I understand the gentleman 
correctly? 1 understood him to say that he ad- 
vocates the principle of the Kansas and Nebraska 
bill, because n is based upon the great republican 
principle of the right of the people to settle their 
own institutions for themselves-. 

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir; on this subject. 

Mr. TODD. 1 understand the gentleman to 
say that the people have not that right, and that 
Congress has not the power to clothe them with 
thai right. Now, I want to know where this 



great representative principle, of which the gen- 
tleman speaks, resides, and how it is to be exer- 
cised, if neither Congress nor the people possess 
it? 

Mr. STEPHENS. It is to be exercised by 
the people when they form their Stale constitu- 
tion. That is my view of how and when the 
power is to be properly exercised; thai is what I 
cpneeive the old republican idea was. 

Now, sir, I Will hear the gentleman from 
Maine, [Mr. Washburn,] who desires to ask me 
a question. 

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. I understood 
the ge hi lei n.in from< feorgiato say that he believed 
thai ( 'ongress has no power to abolish slavery in 
the Territories, but that the power resides in the 
people: and again, that the people of the Terri- 
tories have no power except that delegated to 
them by Congress. 1 understood the gentleman 
to lay down these two propositions. Now, the 
question 1 have to ask is this: if the people of the 
Territories have no power except that given to 
them by Congress, ami Congress has no power 
to exclude slavery in the Territories, when.' do 
the people of the Territories get the power to 
exclude it there ? 

Mr. STEPHENS. The people have, in my 
opinion, the power to exclude it only in a State 
capacity, or when they form their State eonsti- 
tution. Then they get it where all the States get 
it. The people, in a territorial condition, are but 
new States in embryo: this latent power of fall 
sovereignty; when they assume State form, then 
develops itself; as wings to rise and fly, though 
latent in the chrysalis, do nevertheless develop 
themselves in full beauty, vigor, and perfection at 
the proper time. But I have this further to say in 
reply to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Wash- 
i iirnw] That gentleman, and 1 suppose a ma- 
jority of this House, hold that Congress has the 
full and absolute power to exclude slavery from 
I J the Territories. Well, sir, if Congress has such 
power it has conferred that power upon the peo- 
ple of Kansas and Nebraska. I hold that Con- 
gress has not such unqualified power; but 'if it 
has, as the gentleman believes, then the people 
of those Territories possess it under the bill. 
This is evident from the language of the bill it- 
self. 

•• That the Constitution and all laws of the I T nitcd States, 
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force 
and effect in the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere 
within the United States, except the eighth section of the 
■ \ el preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the 
I uion, approved March ti. 1830, which, being inconsistent 
wiili the principle of non-intervention by Congress with 
slavery in the SuM is and Territories, as recognized by tlie 
legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise meas- 
ure-, is hereby declared inoperative and void : it being the 
line intent and meaning of this act not t<> legislate slavery 
into ;m\ Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, hut 
• ■ pcii|i:.- thereof perfectly free to form and r "di- 
lute their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 

only to lie Constitution Of the United State-;: Provided, 

That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive 
or put in force any law or regulation which may have ex- 
isted prior to th< act of 6th .March. 182Q, either protecting, 
establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 

Now, sir, as [ have stated, I voted for this bill, 
ng the whole matter to the people to settle 
for themselves, subject to no restriction or limita- 
iul the Constitution. With this distinct un- 
derstanding of its import and meaning, and with 
a determination that the existence o£ this power 



14 



being disputed and doubted, it would be better 
and much more consistent with our old-time repub- 
lican principles to let the people settle it than for 
Congress to do it. And although my own opinion 
is that the people, under the limitations of the Con- 
stitution, have not the rightful power to exclude 
slavery so long as they remain in a territorial con- 
dition, yet I am willing that they may determine 
it for themselves, and when they please. I shall 
neror negative any law they may pass, if it is the 
result of a fair legislative expression of .the popular 
will. Never! I am willing that the Territorial Le- 
gislature may act upon the subject when and how 
they may think proper. We got the congres- 
sional restriction taken off. The territories were 
made open and free for immigration and settlement 
by the people of all the States alike, with their 
property alike. No odious and unjust discrim- 
ination or exclusion against any class or portion; 
and I am content that those who thus go there 
from all sections, shall do in this matter as they 
please under their organic law. I wanted the 
question taken out of the Halls of national le- 
gislation. It has done nothing but disturb the 
public peace for thirty-five years or more. So 
long as Congress undertakes to manage it, it 
will continue to do nothing but stir up agitation 
and sectional strife. The people can dispose 
of it better than we can. Why not then, by 
common consent, drop it at once and forever? 
Why not you , gentlemen , around me , give up your 
so-called and so-miscalled Republican ideas of re- 
storing the Missouri restriction, and let the people 
in the far off Territories of Kansas and Nebraska 
look after their own condition, present and future, 
in their own way? Is it not much more con- 
sistentwith Mr. Adams's ideas of Republicanism 
for them to attend to their own domestic matters, 
than for you or us to undertake to do it for them? 
Let us attend to our business, and let them 
attend to theirs. What elsfe keeps this House dis- 
organized and suspends all legislative business? 
I wished, sir, in voting for the Kansas bill, and 
in carrying out in good faith the great principles 
established in 1850 — that memorable epoch, the 
middle of the nineteenth century — andfixingthem 
as the basis and rule of action on the part of the 
General Government in her territorial policy, to 
get rid of this disturbing question here, by r f r- 
ring it unrestrictedly, as far as I could under the 
Constitution, to the people. If they have not the 
power to settle it while a Territory, as a matter 
of absolute right — ex debito justitia, I was will- 
ing, so far as I was concerned and had the power 
to do it, to give it to them as a matter of favor — 
ex gratia. I am willing, as 1 say, that they shall 
exercise the power; and, if a fair expression of 
the popular will — not such as may be affected by 
New England emigrant aid societies, or other 
improper interference, but the fair expression of 
the will of the hardy pioneers, who, going from 
all sections without let or hindrance, seek mw 
lands and new homes in those distant frontier 
countries — shall declare, in deliberate and proper 
form under their organic law, that slavery shall 
not exist amongst them, and I am here at the 
time, I shall abide by their decision. I, as a mem- 
ber upon this floor, never intend to raise the ques- 
tion of their constitutional power to adopt such 
a measure. I shall never attempt to trammel the 
popular will in that case, although I may think 



such legislation wrong and unjust, and not con- 
sistent with constitutional duty on the part of 
those who enact it. Yet it will" be a wrong with- 
out any feasible remedy, so far as I can see. I 
am for maintaining with steadfastness the terri- 
torial bills of 1850 — the principle of leaving the 
people of the Territories, without congressional 
restriction, to settle this question for themselves, 
and to come into the Union, when admitted as 
States, either with or without slavery, as they 
may determine. This principle was recognized 
and established after the severest sectional strug- 
gle this country has ever witnessed, and after 
the old idea, whether right or Wrong in itself, 
whether just or unjust, whether constitutional o* 
unconstitutional, of dividing the Territories be- 
tween the sections, was utterly abandoned and 
repudiated by the party that at first forced it as 
an alternative upon the other. 

The Kansas and Nebraska act carries out the 
policy of this new principle instead of the old 
one. The country, with singular unanimity, sus- 
tained the measures of 1850: and all that is now 
wanting for the permanent peace and repose of 
the whole Union upon all these questions, is an 
adherence to the measures of 1850, both " in prin- 
ciple and substance " as the settled policy of Con- 
gress upon all such matters. That the people of 
all sections will come ultimately, and that before 
long, to this stand, I cannot permit myself to 
doubt. Let us hear no more, then, of repeal. 
Let us organize this body upon a national basis 
and a national sentiment. Let us turn our at- 
tention to the business of the country which 
appropriately belongs to us. Yes, sir, the great 
and diversified interests of this truly great and 
growing country of ours, about which we talk 
and boast so much, and about which we have uo 
much reason to talk and boast. Let us look to 
the fulfillment of the high and noble mission 
assigned us. Do not let the party watchwords 
of "liberty and freedom" for the black man, 
which some gentlemen seem always ready to 
repeat, cause you to forget or neglect the higher 
objects and duties of Government. These re- 
late essentially to our own race, their well-being, 
their progress, their advancement. Let the in- 
ferior race in our midst take that position for 
which, by a wise Providence, it was fitted, and 
which an enlightened and Christian civilization 
in the different sections of our common country, 
may think proper to assign it. 

Mr. Clerk, we hear a great deal now-a-days 
about Americanism — and by not a few of those, 
too, who call theme ilVi s, par excellence, Republi- 
cans. Now, sir, has Americ i — with her hun- 
dreds of millions of foreign trade, and millions 
almost beyond count of internal and domestic 
trade — with all her incalculable resources of com- 
merce, agriculture, and manufactures in a state 
of rapid development — has America, the asylum 
of the misruled, i tied, and oppressed ef 

all climes — the home of civil and religious liberty 
— the light of the world and the hope of man- 
kind, no higher objects to occupy our attention 
1 those questions which, whatever may be 
their merits touching the condition of the African 
race in th i - s°eral State i and Territories, do not 
properly come within the purview of our duties 
to look after here? — questions, the discussion of 
which in this H^'l can have no possible effect 



15 



but to create agitation, stir up strife, array State 
against State, section against section, and to 
render the Government, by suspending its legisla- 
tive functions, incapable practically of perform- 
ing those great and essential objects for which 
alone it was expressly created. 

These views I submit to the considerate atten- 
tion of all. 1 shall trespass no longer upon your 
indulgence. I thank th<i House for their kind- 
ness in hearing me. 1 must apologize for the 
time I have occupied the floor. I had no idea, 



when' I arose, of speaking ten minutes. I ban ly 
wished to say to the gentleman from Tennessee, 
[Mr. Zollicoffer,] that those gentlemen from 

the South who had (TOted for tin: Missouri line, 
could not, because of such voir.;, be jusily held 
or considered the advocates of the constitutional 
power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the 
Territories; and but for his extended reply, 
;ing out new matter, I should not have taken 
up the ten minutes allotted. 



lwww *SS* 



i»» 891 851 2 



w 




